John Kania, Mark Kramer, and Patty Russell’s article suggesting that foundations adopt an emergent strategy model is a welcome addition to growing concerns about the effectiveness of what we have called strategic philanthropy. As recently as February, Fay Twersky wrote an excellent blog entry (“Strategic Philanthropy and the Risk of Certainty,” SSIR, Feb. 5, 2014) cautioning foundations about the “certainty” that infects foundation processes with rigidity and rules. Peter Frumkin wrote about the “primitive and tired” processes of foundations back in 2006 in his book Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Philanthropy. As the authors point out, it is confounding how much foundations constrain themselves when they have so much independence and flexibility. There are good past examples of foundation work that does match the challenge that the authors raise. We are all aware of the success of the conservative foundations in accomplishing great public opinion change by funding multiple channels of research, media, and political forces. The Gill Foundation, which Twersky cites as an example of strategic philanthropy, has actually employed a series of very strategic, but comprehensive, tactics, investing in people, organizations, politics, and networks. Tim Gill always said that he hated strategic plans.

Although I welcome the big message, I am concerned about some of the details in the article. I have strong reservations about letting foundations think that the traditional strategic philanthropy approach “works” for what the authors call simple and complicated projects. They cite building a hospital as an example of a simple project. James D. Jameson recently wrote a case about his experience launching a school for nurses in Uganda. The project looked straightforward at the beginning—something for which money (and at the beginning, not a lot) was the answer. The experience turned out to be anything but simple.

Implementing a known program that works somewhere else ought to be simple, but we all know that isn’t true. After ACCION spent years perfecting their microlending model, they found themselves at a loss to explain why their efforts in Brooklyn, NY, were failing.

It is not just the nature of the project that confounds foundation success. Accomplishing substantial change in the social sphere requires practices that are consistent with the complex environment in which projects are embedded. The authors point to the need to pay attention to other actors in a system, but I think that there are more mundane practices that need to be put in place as well.

Foundations have to be prepared to be patient and sustain their efforts for much longer than the usual cycles of grantmaking. Adaptation takes time because of the necessity to plan, do, check, then act, evaluate, and start over. They need to invest more in any effort in order to relieve staff from the tyranny of getting the money out every year, so staff can spend more time with grantees than grant seekers. Foundation staff need to be accountable for real performance in the field rather than compliance with a plan they established. They need to be given flexible funding to respond with agility to changes in the world rather than rely on grantmaking timelines of the board. Many foundations simply need to have more staff in order to be learning and adjusting along with partners and grantees. The board needs to get as big a kick from learning as from launching initiatives.

This article will create good conversations, and I know that some philanthropists and foundation leaders will use it to become curious and creative as they think about how to structure their work. I applaud the authors for challenging their own previous beliefs and advice. Perhaps the most important beacon that we all should be seeking is the impact that we all talk about so much. If at first we don’t achieve impact, try, try again. Despite the fact that others have suggested these ideas in the past, it is still worthwhile to continue to raise them. As André Gide wrote in Le Traité du Narcisse, “Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again.”

Read the rest of the responses.